Study on the impact of injection timing advance on the performance and emissions of a diesel engine fueled with a gasoline–diesel blend

Abstract

Environmental concerns have increasingly driven industries worldwide, particularly the automotive sector, to address the challenges posed by pollutant emissions from internal combustion engines. Diesel engines, for instance, offer higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines but remain major contributors to atmospheric pollution. Their emission characteristics are also strongly influenced by fuel properties. One promising approach to mitigating these emissions is the use of gasoline–diesel fuel blends. Due to their higher volatility and improved vaporization behavior, these blends promote more homogeneous air–fuel mixture formation, making them suitable for compression ignition engines. In addition, modifying key combustion parameters, most notably injection timing, has proven effective in influencing both emissions and combustion dynamics. Alongside injection pressure and intake oxygen concentration, injection timing plays a critical role in determining pollutant formation and the acoustic characteristics of the combustion process. This study examines the impact of a gasoline–diesel blend (G10) on the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine, with particular emphasis on the effects of varying injection timing. The aim is to experimentally evaluate how combining this blend with injection timing adjustments influences engine efficiency and emission output. The experimental results show that advancing injection timing improves torque, power output, and thermal efficiency while maintaining relatively low fuel consumption. Conversely, retarding injection timing is more effective in reducing pollutant emissions. The most effective strategy is delaying injection at 80% load and 3,500 rpm, which results in reductions of smoke density, NO_X, and CO₂ by 77.34%, 34.45%, and 11.34%, respectively. Performance also improves, with torque increasing by 26.25%, power by 14.52%, and specific fuel consumption decreasing by 9.76%. Although a trade-off exists between optimizing performance and minimizing emissions, the findings indicate that strategic calibration of injection parameters can achieve a balanced compromise between both goals. In conclusion, adjusting injection timing emerges as a viable technique for reducing pollutant emissions without significantly compromising—and potentially even enhancing—engine performance.

Introduction

In recent decades, the intensification of the environmental crisis has compelled various industrial sectors - particularly the transportation industry - to adopt more sustainable and environmentally responsible practices. Among the most critical issues are vehicular emissions, which constitute a major source of global air pollution (Rao et al., 2022). Diesel engines, widely employed in transportation - especially in heavy-duty applications (Bajwa et al., 2024) - are favored for their high thermal efficiency (Sajeevan and Sajith, 2013). However, they are also significant contributors to pollutant emissions, particularly nitrogen oxides (NO_x), which must be substantially reduced to comply with increasingly stringent environmental regulations. The formation of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter is primarily governed by the local temperatures within the combustion chamber. NOx generation occurs predominantly in high-temperature regions and reaches its maximum near stoichiometric conditions. Effective mitigation of NOx emissions requires combustion to proceed at localized temperatures in the range of 2000–2200 K. Conversely, particulate matter formation spans a temperature interval between 1000 K and 2800 K, which coincides with the thermal conditions under which NOx reduction is achieved (Mónico, 2013). According to the 2023 United Nations Emissions Gap Report, global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions reached 57.4 Gt, with approximately 65% originating from the combustion of fossil fuels (UNEP, 2020).

In response to these environmental challenges, hybrid and electric vehicles have emerged as promising technologies capable of achieving ultra-low or even zero pollutant emissions. Nevertheless, these systems remain in a developmental phase and demand substantial investment to establish the requisite infrastructure for widespread deployment (Wise Guy Reports, 2025). The electrification of the transport sector constitutes a fundamental strategy for achieving climate objectives; nevertheless, it necessitates the deployment of extensive charging infrastructure, a significant expansion of electricity generation capacity—primarily from renewable sources—and the formulation and enforcement of robust policy frameworks aimed at reducing costs and accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles (Kumar Jha et al., 2025). For example, in Colombia, electric vehicle adoption reached a record of 58,000 units sold by September 2022; however, the country faces a critical limitation in charging infrastructure, with an estimated ratio of only one charger for every 35 vehicles (Latamovility, 2025). Considering environmental and regulatory pressures, considerable efforts have been devoted to advancing the development of alternative fuels and the implementation of sophisticated emission control technologies.

The implementation of passive strategies, such as particulate traps, and variable engine systems—including variable valve timing and variable compression ratio—contributes to optimizing engine performance under diverse load and fuel conditions (Milojević and Pešić, 2018). Nevertheless, these measures alone are insufficient to meet stringent emission requirements. Direct improvements have also been implemented to the vehicle itself. These include measures such as reducing vehicle weight, enhancing aerodynamics, and other design optimizations. Improving vehicle aerodynamics reduces aerodynamic drag, fuel consumption, and emissions, while enhancing overall performance. These physical devices are effective; however, their impact depends on proper installation and design (Skrucany et al., 2019). Therefore, active control strategies are essential to regulate pollutant formation within the combustion chamber. This necessity drives the adoption of advanced combustion concepts and the integration of alternative fuels to achieve improved efficiency and reduced environmental impact.

The biofuels derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, typically produced through esterification or transesterification processes. These fuels are gaining recognition within the scientific and academic communities as viable substitutes for conventional diesel (Surakasi et al., 2023), and are commonly sourced from crops such as sunflower, soybean, and rapeseed (Pohit and Misra, 2013; Ligan Noukpo et al., 2020; Srinivasa Rao and Getachew Alenka, 2022). In addition to fuel innovations, the implementation of exhaust after-treatment systems—such as diesel particulate filters and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems—has played a crucial role in reducing emissions from diesel engines. Furthermore, methanol has emerged as a potential additive due to its distinct advantages, including cost-effectiveness, high oxygen content, superior octane rating, and its ability to reduce pollutant emissions associated with conventional fossil fuels (Kadhim and Oshchepkov, 2024), or the addition of CeO₂ enables the attainment of efficiency levels comparable to those of conventional diesel fuel. As the concentration of CeO₂ increases, the specific fuel consumption (SFC) decreases, indicating an improvement in overall fuel efficiency. Furthermore, the observed increases in cylinder pressure (CP) and net heat release (NHR) demonstrate a more efficient combustion process facilitated by the additive (Krishnappa et al., 2026). Dual biodiesel blends represent a technically feasible renewable alternative to conventional diesel for use in unmodified compression-ignition engines. These blends demonstrate substantial reductions in carbon monoxide and smoke opacity while maintaining performance metrics comparable to diesel at lower blend ratios (Thirumalvalavan et al., 2025).

One effective strategy for reducing pollutant emissions in compression ignition engines is the use of gasoline–diesel fuel blends. Conventional gasoline is less dense, more volatile, and more resistant to autoignition than standard diesel fuel. These properties enable gasoline–diesel blends to evaporate more rapidly and form more homogeneous mixtures, thereby supporting a more efficient combustion process. Such blends have been shown to maintain engine performance while helping to keep emissions within acceptable limits (Zhong et al., 2005; Hildingsson et al., 2010; Kalghatgi et al., 2010).

Due to their lower cetane number, these blends increase ignition delay time, allowing for improved mixing prior to autoignition. This results in a greater proportion of fuel being combusted near top dead center (TDC), which contributes to simultaneous reductions in nitrogen oxide (NO_x) and particulate matter emissions. Research conducted by Han et al. (2010), Şahin (2008) advises against using gasoline concentrations above 40% by volume, as higher levels can lead to combustion instability and knocking - issues that are particularly critical in diesel engines.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that gasoline–diesel blends can significantly reduce nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions while also achieving substantially lower smoke levels compared to conventional diesel combustion. These advantages are particularly pronounced under high-load operating conditions, elevated exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rates, and when using fuels with research octane numbers (RON) ranging from 75 to 85 (Hildingsson et al., 2009).

However, such combustion modes are often associated with increased emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC), as well as higher heat release rates. These challenges can be effectively addressed through precise mixture control, which may involve optimized injector designs and advanced injection strategies, such as multiple injection events.

In this context, the use of gasoline as a blending component may necessitate modifications to the fuel injection system, including the adoption of injectors with larger orifice diameters and the application of lower injection pressures to enhance mixture formation. Nevertheless, increasing the octane number can introduce operational difficulties, particularly under low-load and high-speed conditions, where maintaining stable combustion becomes more challenging (Hildingsson et al., 2010).

Gautam et al. conducted experiments using a single-cylinder diesel engine with a compression ratio of 15.8, comparing three different fuels: a typical European diesel with a cetane number (CN) of 56, a European gasoline with 95 RON and 85 MON (estimated CN of 16), and another gasoline with 84 RON and 78 MON (estimated CN of 21). Their results showed that gasoline use led to reduced smoke levels; however, emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) were notably higher. The authors concluded that, unlike diesel, large quantities of gasoline can be injected early in the cycle without causing significant heat release during the compression stroke. This behavior helps shape the heat release profile and contributes to lower pollutant emissions (Kalghatgi et al., 2010).

Additionally, optimizing fuel injection timing and fuel-splitting ratios has been shown to improve engine performance, reduce combustion noise, and lower emissions (Abdelrazek et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). For instance, slower injection speeds have resulted in substantial reductions in NO_x and soot emissions from diesel combustion (Punukollu et al., 2024). When fuel injection is delayed shifting the main combustion phase into the expansion stroke, peak temperatures decrease significantly, thereby reducing NO_x formation. However, the lower combustion temperatures also hinder particle oxidation and reduce thermal efficiency.

As injection timing is retarded, the heat release rate curve begins to shift—premixed combustion becomes more dominant while diffusion combustion is suppressed. Combined with high EGR rates, this leads to the development of advanced combustion concepts such as Modulated Kinetics (MK), Homogeneous Charge Late Injection (HCLI), and Highly Premixed Late Injection (HPLI) (Mónico, 2013). These strategies rely on extended ignition delays to allow for the formation of fully homogeneous mixtures, effectively reducing NO_x and particulate emissions. Moreover, this approach helps avoid issues such as fuel impingement on cylinder walls and excessively early combustion onset.

Conversely, injecting fuel early in the compression stroke can enhance engine performance and reduce particulate emissions; however, it tends to increase nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions (Suh, 2011). This is because combustion occurs closer to top dead center (TDC), resulting in higher thermal efficiency. Nonetheless, this strategy presents challenges such as fuel impingement on the cylinder walls, particularly when using conventional diesel fuel.

Direct injection strategies—implemented through one or more injectors—have led to the development of various advanced combustion concepts. Among these, Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) and Premixed Charge Compression Ignition (PCCI) stand out due to their relative ease of implementation (Alemayehu et al., 2022; Moretto et al., 2024; Onojowho and Asere, 2024). Other notable concepts include UNIBUS (Uniform Bulky Combustion System), HIMICS (Homogeneous Charge Intelligent Multiple Injection Combustion System), NADI (Narrow Angle Direct Injection), MULDIC (Multiple Stage Diesel Combustion), and PREDIC (Premixed Lean Diesel Combustion) (Mónico, 2013). In many of these approaches, multiple injection strategies are employed to improve combustion noise characteristics and reduce pollutant emissions (Tetrault and Seers, 2023).

Finally, to evaluate the impact of modifying injection timing when using a gasoline–diesel blend on engine performance, smoke levels, and NO_x emissions, this study will experimentally advance and retard the injection timing and assess its effects on the variables. Adjusting injection timing alters the ignition delay—either extending it or making it more favorable—which, as demonstrated in previous research, can enable the engine to operate under more environmentally sustainable conditions.

Experimental setup

To investigate the effects of using a gasoline–diesel blend and varying injection timing in a diesel engine, experiments were conducted on a stationary test bench. The setup included a hydraulic dynamometer, which enabled precise control of engine speed, crankshaft load, and overall engine load through modulation of fuel flow via the accelerator system (Saenz, 2019). The main specifications of the engine used in this study are summarized in Table 1, showing a mechanical fuel pump that allows a fuel injection timing of 10°, approximately a 5° advance and retard of the fuel injection timing.

To ensure accurate monitoring of engine operation, temperature measurements were taken at the heat exchanger, engine block, and exhaust system. Additionally, several key parameters—including blow-by, oil pressure, intake air flow, engine torque, engine speed, and ambient conditions—were continuously recorded throughout the tests. All data were collected using a SMAC data acquisition system, which provided real-time monitoring via a control panel interface using the test bench software (Saenz, 2019).

Smoke density was measured using an opacimeter, while a portable gas analyzer was employed to quantify carbon dioxide (CO₂) and nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions. Fuel consumption was determined gravimetrically using a high-precision balance, and a thermocouple was installed at the fuel pump inlet to monitor fuel temperature. The measurement accuracy of the primary instruments and sensors used in this study is detailed in Table 2. A schematic diagram of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Gasoline blend

The fuel blend used in this study consisted of standard diesel mixed with 10% gasoline by volume, referred to as G10. For this procedure, a new, clean, and dry 20-L fuel-grade container was used. To prepare the G10 blend, 2 L of gasoline and 18 L of commercial diesel fuel were added. The same container was subsequently employed as the engine’s fuel reservoir by inserting the suction and return hoses. A seal was then applied around the hoses to prevent evaporation losses of the gasoline component. In addition to fuel blending, injection timing was varied—both advanced and retarded—to assess its influence on engine behavior and emission characteristics. The physicochemical properties of the G10 blend are presented in Table 3. The cetane index, a theoretical estimate of the cetane number, was calculated based on fuel density and distillation characteristics in accordance with ASTM D976.

Test plan

The experimental matrix is outlined in Table 4. The engine was operated under different load levels and rotational speeds using the G10 blend, resulting in a total of 45 test runs. Torque and power data are continuously recorded by the test bench from 1,500 rpm to 3,500 rpm; for its part, the missions and fuel consumption were measured every 500 rpm. The label G10N denotes the baseline condition with standard injection timing, G10A refers to advanced injection timing (approximately 5° from baseline condition) and G10D corresponds to delayed injection timing (also approximately 5° from baseline condition).

The experimental procedure began with engine startup, followed by a warm-up phase until a stable operating temperature of approximately 80 °C was reached. Once stabilized, engine speed gradually increased for each fuel condition until full load (wide-open throttle) was achieved. Speed was controlled via the hydraulic dynamometer, ranging from 1,500 to 3,500 rpm. At each stabilized operating point, performance and emission data were recorded. The procedure was repeated at 90% and 80% load levels across the same speed range. To ensure reliability and repeatability, each test point was replicated three times.

Results and Discussion

This section presents the results obtained from evaluating the performance and emission characteristics of a diesel engine operating with a gasoline–diesel blend under varying injection timing conditions. The analysis begins with key performance metrics, including engine power, torque, brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), and thermal efficiency, assessed for each test condition. Subsequently, the focus shifts to exhaust emission analysis, specifically smoke opacity, nitrogen oxides (NO_x), and carbon dioxide (CO₂), which were measured concurrently with the performance parameters to provide a comprehensive understanding of the engine’s operational and environmental behavior.

Performance results

As illustrated in Figure 2, engine torque follows a consistent trend across all injection timing configurations. Torque increases with engine speed, reaching a peak at approximately 2,200 rpm, after which it declines sharply as speed continues to rise. A reduction in engine load results in a proportional decrease in torque output. When injection timing is advanced, torque increases by up to 20% across all three load levels compared to the baseline condition (standard injection timing). In comparison with other studies involving oxygenated blends, advancing the injection timing typically enhances heat release and shifts combustion toward TDC, thereby increasing BMEP/torque and power output. Gopal et al., working with a diesel–biodiesel–ethanol blend (70:20:10), report higher BTE and reductions in smoke and NOx when advancing injection by 4° CA, with evidence of pressure levels comparable to those of neat diesel; this effect implies an increase in effective work (Gopal et al., 2025). In contrast, delaying the injection timing does not produce any significant variation in torque relative to the baseline. Studies involving biodiesel and alcohol blends indicate that torque tends to decrease or remain unchanged when injection timing is retarded (Prasad et al., 2013; Rostami et al., 2014).

FIGURE 2

A similar pattern is observed in the engine power output, as shown in Figure 3. At higher load levels, the engine generates greater power. For all load conditions, power increases with engine speed, peaking near the upper limit of the operating range, with a slight decline observed at 3,500 rpm. Consistent with the torque behavior, power output improves with advanced injection timing, showing increases of up to 16% compared to the baseline. Conversely, no substantial differences are observed between the baseline and delayed injection configurations.

FIGURE 3

Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), which reflects the efficiency of fuel usage relative to the power produced, is presented in Figure 4. BSFC increases with engine speed. Compared to the baseline, advancing the injection timing results in a reduction in fuel consumption of approximately 3.34% at full load and 4.32% at 80% load. On the other hand, delayed injection timing generally leads to higher fuel consumption, with increases of up to 11.68%. The observed trend aligns with the findings reported by (Sabapathy et al., 2025), where delayed injection timing was associated with deteriorated brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and thermal efficiency, whereas advancing the injection timing restored combustion characteristics and efficiency to levels comparable to those achieved with conventional diesel fuel. Ahmed et al. (butanol–diesel, 1D GT-Power) report that early injection timings of 20°–25° bTDC slightly improve efficiency, whereas retarded injections increase BSFC and reduce efficiency—trends that are consistent with the figures obtained in the present study (Ahmed et al., 2019).

FIGURE 4

Thermal efficiency—defined as the inverse of the product of BSFC and the lower heating value of the fuel—is analyzed in Figure 5. Thermal efficiency tends to increase as engine load decreases. In most test conditions, higher thermal efficiency is observed with advanced injection timing, compared to both the baseline and delayed injection configurations. Similar results were obtained by Gopal et al., who observed a 5.87% increase in brake thermal efficiency when using diesel-biodiesel-ethanol blends with advanced injection timing (Gopal et al., 2025). Similarly, Ahmed et al. found that early injection timings (20°–25° CA bTDC) improved brake thermal efficiency and reduced CO₂ and unburned hydrocarbon emissions in butanol-diesel blends (Ahmed et al., 2019), and Yusuf et al. investigated the impact of plastic waste oil (WPO) obtained through pretreatment and catalytic pyrolysis, blended with acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) and diesel fuel, on diesel engine, The results indicated that the ABE5W15D blend significantly reduced smoke and CO emissions by 35.7% and 17.43%, respectively, with a slight decrease in HC emissions (Yusuf et al., 2024).

FIGURE 5

Emissions results

Results of smoke emissions are presented in Figure 6. The reduced smoke emissions for G10 can thus be attributed to better oxidation occurring near the fuel-rich zones inside the combustion chamber, as also happens in Zandie et al.'s work (Zandie et al., 2022b). Additionally, Diesel/Gasoline blends prolong the ignition delay and retard the combustion phasing, which in turn reduces smoke emissions. As the load decreases, smoke density levels are lower for all cases, and likewise, with an increase in rpm, the levels are also lower. The lowest smoke density levels occur with the delayed injection strategy, as there is more time to form a fully homogeneous mixture, thereby reducing this pollutant. In terms of conventional and advanced injections, similar smoke density values are observed at all three load levels. In general, it is possible to reduce smoke density by approximately 73% when the injection is delayed. In experimental studies involving diesel–biodiesel–gasoline blends, the addition of gasoline has been shown to prolong ignition and reduce smoke emissions because it enables the formation of a more homogeneous mixture. These studies report opacity reductions of 50%–70% under high-load conditions with gasoline admixture (very close to your 73%) (Ohkoshi et al., 1992; Hoseinpour et al., 2019). Furthermore, CFD studies and review articles on diesel–biodiesel–gasoline mixtures indicate that such blends exhibit longer ignition delays (ID), shorter combustion durations, and consequently lower soot formation. The reduction in soot may also be attributed to a lower peak temperature during the diffusive combustion phase (Zandie et al., 2022b; Zandie et al., 2022a).

FIGURE 6

In relation to NO_X levels, which are presented in Figure 7, like the smoke density, the lowest levels of this pollutant occur with the delayed injection strategy, with only slight variations between the conventional strategy and the advanced injection. This reduction is visible from the moment when the injection is delayed and the combustion phase is shifted to the expansion stroke, which helps reduce the peak temperature reached in the cycle and, therefore, the NO_X emissions (Sindhu et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). With delayed injection, reductions of up to 53% of this pollutant are achieved. Comparable results are found in the studies conducted by Zhao et al. (2019).

FIGURE 7

Regarding carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, which are presented in Figure 8, a general decreasing trend is observed with increasing engine speed at 90% and 80% load levels. A slight increase in CO₂ concentration is noted under advanced injection timing conditions, which correlates with the observed rise in fuel consumption, as depicted in Figure 4. The results are consistent with those reported by Bouza and Caserta (2003), who found that engine load and speed influence CO₂ emissions, with lower emissions occurring at reduced loads and increased speeds.

FIGURE 8

Trade off performance and emissions results

In general terms, when evaluating the performance with the G10 blend and modifying the injection timings, it is observed that with the strategy in which the injection timing is advanced, it is possible to achieve better values of torque, power, and thermal efficiency, with low fuel consumption. This would make it an excellent option for improving the performance of compression-ignition engines. However, when considering the results of pollutant emissions, the best results occur when the injection is delayed. In other words, the best results for both aspects being evaluated are opposites. Despite this, there are specific operational strategies in which it is possible to reduce pollutants while maintaining good performance levels. The strategy that stands out the most is delaying the injection at 80% load. Table 5 compares the results of G10N and G10D at 80% load and 3,500 rpm:

With this strategy, it is possible to reduce smoke density, NO_X, and CO₂ by 77.34%, 34.45%, and 11.34%, respectively; and in terms of performance, torque increases by 26.25%, power rises by 14.52%, and specific fuel consumption decreases by 9.76%.

Conclusions

The principal conclusions derived from this study are presented below:

It was observed that engine performance -measured in terms of torque and power output - improves when the injection timing is advanced. On average, torque and power increased by approximately 20% and 16%, respectively, compared with operation using commercial diesel under standard injection timing. Regarding brake specific fuel consumption, advancing the injection timing resulted in a maximum reduction of approximately 4%.

With respect to pollutant emissions, both smoke density and nitrogen oxides were found to decrease across all three load levels when delayed injection strategies were implemented. Reductions of up to 70% in smoke density and 50% in NO_x emissions were achieved. In contrast, carbon dioxide emissions exhibited occasional increases, which are consistent with the observed rise in fuel consumption under certain operating conditions.

Finally, among all the strategies evaluated, a specific operating condition was identified that enabled simultaneous improvement in engine performance and reduction in pollutant emissions, relative to the conventional injection strategy.

Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended to conduct further experimental investigations involving variations in fuel injection timing, both advance and delay, combined with the implementation of Exhaust Gas Recirculation strategies. These measures aim to control the formation of NOx while simultaneously mitigating the characteristic noise associated with Diesel engines. Additionally, future research should explore the performance and emission characteristics of new blends of alternative fuels under these optimized operating conditions.

References

• 1

  AbdelrazekM. K.AbdelaalM. M.El-NahasA. M. (2022). Piston bowl shape and biodiesel fuel effects on combustion and emission of diesel engines. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.69, 103. 10.1186/s44147-022-00158-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AhmedS. A.ZhouS.ZhuY.FengY.MalikA.AhmadN. (2019). Influence of injection timing on performance and exhaust emission of CI engine fuelled with butanol-diesel using a 1D GT-power model. Processes7, 299. 10.3390/pr7050299

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AlemayehuG.NallamothuR. B.FirewD.GR. (2022). Experimental investigation on impact of EGR configuration on exhaust emissions in optimized PCCI-DI diesel engine. J. Eng.2022, 1–9. 10.1155/2022/5688842

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BajwaA.ZouG.ZhongF.FangX.LeachF.DavyM. (2024). Development of a semi-empirical physical model for transient NOx emissions prediction from a high-speed diesel engine. Int. J. Engine Res.25, 1835–1848. 10.1177/14680874241255165

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BouzaR.CasertaJ. (2003). Effects of injection timing on exhaust emissions of a fuel injected spark ignition engine. Available online at: https://www.v-eight.com/multimedia/library/Effectsofinjectiontimingonexhaustemissionsofafuelinjectedsparkignitionengine.pdf (Accessed October 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  GopalR.MayilsamyK.SubramanianR.NedunchezhianN.VenkatachalamR. (2025). “Advancing injection timing for enhanced performance and reduced emissions in DI diesel engines using diesel-biodiesel-ethanol blends,” in Sustainable development research in materials and renewable energy engineering: advancements of science and technology. Editors GetieM. Z.MequanintK.AlemuM. A.AshebirG. Y.TigabuM. T. (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 181–209. 10.1007/978-3-031-81730-4_11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  HanD.IckesA. M.AssanisD. N.HuangZ.BohacS. V. (2010). Attainment and load extension of high-efficiency premixed low-temperature combustion with edieseline in a compression ignition engine. Energy Fuels24, 3517–3525. 10.1021/ef100269c

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  HildingssonL.KalghatgiG. T.TaitN.JohanssonB. H.HarrisonA. (2009). Fuel octane effects in the partially premixed combustion regime in compression ignition engines. SAE Int. J. Engines1. 10.4271/2009-01-2648

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  HildingssonL.JohanssonB.KalghatgiG. T.HarrisonA. J. (2010). Some effects of fuel autoignition quality and volatility in premixed compression ignition engines. SAE Tech. Pap.3, 440–460. 10.4271/2010-01-0607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  HoseinpourM.SadrniaH.GhobadianB.TabasizadehM. (2019). Exhaust emission characteristics of a diesel engine on gasoline fumigation: an experimental investigation and evaluation using the MCDM method. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.16, 995–1004. 10.1007/s13762-018-1667-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  KadhimM. Q.OshchepkovP. P. (2024). Experimental investigation of emissions from a single-cylinder diesel engine using methanol–diesel blends. Front. Energy Res.12, 1–9. 10.3389/fenrg.2024.1449652

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  KalghatgiG.HildingssonL.JohanssonB. (2010). Low NOx and low smoke operation of a diesel engine using gasolinelike fuels. J. Eng. Gas. Turbine. Power132, 92803. 10.1115/1.4000602

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  KrishnappaG.RameshaD. K.AnjappaS. B. (2026). Validation of experimental and gradient boosting regressor model for predicting performance, combustion, emission, and biomedical implications of cerium oxide derived from used temple oil.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  KumarM.JainA.Chhaganlal VoraK. (2019). “Combustion optimization and In-Cylinder NOx and PM reduction by using EGR and split injection techniques,” in NuGen Summit, (SAE International). 10.4271/2019-28-2560

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Kumar JhaA.DarlamiH. B.BhattaraiN.KarnS.NeupaneG. (2025). Projecting energy demand and ghg reduction with electric vehicle adoption in Nepal. Appl. Eng. Lett. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.10, 160–170. 10.46793/aeletters.2025.10.3.4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Latamovility (2025). América Latina avanza en infraestructura de carga para vehículos eléctricos: Brasil, México y Colombia lideran la región. Available online at: https://latamobility.com/america-latina-avanza-en-infraestructura-de-carga-para-vehiculos-electricos-brasil-mexico-y-colombia-lideran-la-region/ (Accessed October 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Ligan NoukpoM.Ngayihi AbbeC. V.Nkongho AnyiJ.EssolaD.MezoueC.MouangueR.et al (2020). Experimental and numerical investigation on the influence of the rate of injection (Roi) on engine performance for B100 fuel control strategy in diesel engines. J. Eng.2020, 8884754. 10.1155/2020/8884754

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  MilojevićS.PešićR. (2018). Determination of combustion process model parameters in diesel engine with variable compression ratio. J. Combust.2018, 1–11. 10.1155/2018/5292837

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  MónicoL. (2013). Contribución al estudio del ruido de combustión en conceptos avanzados de combustión Diesel. València: Universitat Politècnica de València. 10.4995/Thesis/10251/19015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  MorettoG.HänggiS.OmanovicA.AmstutzA.OnderC. (2024). A method to quantify the advantages of a variable valve train for CI engines. Int. J. Engine Res.25, 3–23. 10.1177/14680874231204113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  OhkoshiM.KokuboK.HosogaiD.NishimuraJ.KobayashiT. (1992). Diesel smoke reduction by gasoline fumigation using an ultrasonic atomizer. SAE Trans.101, 1427–1435. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44611299 (Accessed October 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  OnojowhoE. E.AsereA. A. (2024). Effects of the fuel blend flow rate on engine combustion performance. Front. Energy Res.12, 1–16. 10.3389/fenrg.2024.1335507

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  PohitG.MisraD. (2013). Optimization of performance and emission characteristics of diesel engine with biodiesel using grey-taguchi method. J. Eng.2013, 915357–915358. 10.1155/2013/915357

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  PrasadP. V.PrasadB. D.PrakashR. H. (2013). Effect of injection timing on performance and emission characteristics of 4S-Single Cy linder DI diesel engine using PME blend as fuel. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol.2, 3201–3207. 10.17577/IJERTV2IS121189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  PunukolluR.PashamN. R.BaligaN. (2024). Surrogate model-driven multi-parameter optimization of four distinct combustion chambers in a four-stroke diesel engine. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.71, 221. 10.1186/s44147-024-00560-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  RaoM. S.RaoCh. S.KumariA. S. (2022). Synthesis, stability, and emission analysis of magnetite nanoparticle-based biofuels. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.69, 79. 10.1186/s44147-022-00127-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  RostamiS.GhobadianB.Deh KianiM. K. (2014). Effect of the injection timing on the performance of a diesel engine using diesel-biodiesel blends. Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng.10, 1945–1958. 10.15282/ijame.10.2014.12.0163

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  SabapathyS. P.AmmasiA. M.KhalifeE.BabuM.MunusamyS.SabapathyP.et al (2025). Optimization of injection timing and ethyl hexyl nitrate additive effects on diesel engine characteristics using rubber seed oil biodiesel. Int. J. Energy Res.2025, 1686933. 10.1155/er/1686933

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Saenz (2019). Bancos de Pruebas de Motores. Available online at: http://www.saenzdynos.com.ar/ (Accessed August 27, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  ŞahinZ. (2008). Experimental and theoretical investigation of the effects of gasoline blends on single-cylinder diesel engine performance and exhaust emissions. Energy\& Fuels22, 3201–3212. 10.1021/ef800236y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  SajeevanA. C.SajithV. (2013). Diesel engine emission reduction using catalytic nanoparticles: an experimental investigation. J. Eng.2013, 589382–589389. 10.1155/2013/589382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  SindhuR.Amba Prasad RaoG.Madhu MurthyK. (2018). Effective reduction of NOx emissions from diesel engine using split injections. Alexandria Eng. J.57, 1379–1392. 10.1016/j.aej.2017.06.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  SkrucanyT.SemanovaS.MilojevićS.AšonjaA. (2019). New technologies improving aerodynamic properties of freight vehicles. Appl. Eng. Lett.4, 48–54. 10.18485/aeletters.2019.4.2.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Srinivasa RaoY.Getachew AlenkaT. (2022). Performance and emission analysis of common rail diesel engine with microalgae biodiesel. J. Eng.2022, 7441659. 10.1155/2022/7441659

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  SuhH. K. (2011). Investigations of multiple injection strategies for the improvement of combustion and exhaust emissions characteristics in a low compression ratio (CR) engine. Appl. Energy88, 5013–5019. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.06.048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  SurakasiR.Srinivasa RaoY.KalamSd. A.BegumN. (2023). Emissions and performance of diesel engines correlated with biodiesel properties. J. Eng.2023, 5274325. 10.1155/2023/5274325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  TetraultP.SeersP. (2023). A rate-of-injection model for predicting single and double injection with or without fusion. Int. J. Engine Res.24, 3613–3625. 10.1177/14680874231166978

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  ThirumalvalavanS.ThanikasalamA.SenthilkumarN.SabariK.YuvaperiyasamyM. (2025). Investigation of the emission and performance characteristics of a direct injection diesel engine fuelled with dual biodiesel blends. Adv. Eng. Lett.4, 105–117. 10.46793/adeletters.2025.4.3.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  UNEP (2020). Emissions GapReport 2020.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Wise Guy Reports (2025). Hybrid cars and Ev market. Available online at: https://www.wiseguyreports.com/es/reports/hybrid-cars-and-ev-market (Accessed October 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  YusufA. A.VezaI.AmpahJ. D.AfraneS.SarikoçS.MujtabaM. A.et al (2024). Experimental study on emissions and particulate characteristics of diesel engine fueled with plastic waste oil, acetone-butanol-ethanol and diesel blends. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.191, 1419–1431. 10.1016/j.psep.2024.09.060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  ZandieM.NgH. K.GanS.Muhamad SaidM. F.ChengX. (2022a). A comprehensive CFD study of the spray combustion, soot formation and emissions of ternary mixtures of diesel, biodiesel and gasoline under compression ignition engine-relevant conditions. Energy260, 125191. 10.1016/j.energy.2022.125191

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ZandieM.NgH. K.GanS.SaidM. F. M.ChengX. (2022b). The viability of using gasoline-integrated biodiesel-diesel mixtures in engines as a solution to greenhouse gas emissions: a review. Clean. Energy6, 848–868. 10.1093/ce/zkac056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ZhangZ.LiuH.YueZ.WuY.KongX.ZhengZ.et al (2022). Effects of multiple injection strategies on heavy-duty diesel energy distributions and emissions under high peak combustion pressures. Front. Energy Res.10, 1–15. 10.3389/fenrg.2022.857077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  ZhaoY.CuiK.ZhuJ.ChenS.WangL. C.CheruiyotN. K.et al (2019). Effects of retarding fuel injection timing on toxic organic pollutant emissions from diesel engines. Aerosol Air Qual. Res.19, 1346–1354. 10.4209/aaqr.2019.03.0112

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  ZhongS.WyszynskiM. L.MegaritisA.YapD.XuH. (2005). Experimental investigation into HCCI combustion using gasoline and diesel blended fuels. SAE Tech. Pap.1. 10.4271/2005-01-3733

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar